All the sensible police/legislative reforms don't explicitly mention race either, but they will help to address the problem... Same thing.

Show me an explicitly racist policy. If they aren’t explicitly racist, or they are not exclusive to this or that race, but are to be applied evenly to each and every individual, they are not racist, They are race neutral. If someone puts their finger on the scale of justices and they are applied for or against someone because of their race, that is the result of individual racists, not the law. Does this not compute to you?

Show me an explicitly racist policy. — NOS4A2

I'm done now. Your constant reframing attempts are, as ever, frustrating.

I'm done now. Your constant reframing attempts are, as ever, frustrating.

You tried to connect me to Lee Atwater.

If they aren’t explicitly racist, or they are not exclusive to this or that race, but are to be applied evenly to each and every individual, they are not racist, They are race neutral. — NOS4A2

What kind of fuckstickery is this shit? You think policies need to declare themselves to be racist in order to be racist? Fuck off. You're not this stupid, from which one can only conclude that you're being deliberately obtuse.

What kind of fuckstickery is this shit? You think policies need to declare themselves to be racist in order to be racist? Fuck off. You're not this stupid, from which one can only conclude that you're being deliberately shit, so stop being deliberately shit you fuckstain.

No, that’s not what I think. I think policies have to be explicitly racist in order for it to be racist, for instance Black Codes, Nuremberg laws or Apartheid.

Jim Crow?

Let's say we started banning Trump supporters with over 3.4k posts who believed that racism is propagated mostly through people categorising others into racial categories...

No, Nos, it's not directed at you. It would be a principle thing.

Why? Because racists need to be dumb enough to cater to your faux-naivety?

That’s right.

I think policies have to be explicitly racist in order for it to be racist — NOS4A2

Title VII of the Civil Rights Act of 1964 makes it illegal to discriminate on the basis of national origin. This law applies to employers with 15 or more employees. It forbids discrimination based upon an individual's birthplace, ancestry, culture, linguistic characteristics (common to a specific group) or accent.

What was the point of that act in your opinion?

What was the point of that act in your opinion?

To forbid discrimination on the basis of national origin.

Do you think it had anything to do with racism?

Sounds to be more about ethnicity than race.

Okay. (Here’s my ticket out :party:)

Let's say we started banning Trump supporters with over 3.4k posts who believed that racism is propagated mostly through people categorising others into racial categories...

No, Nos, it's not directed at you. It would be a principle thing.

That’s the sort of discrimination I’m talking about and looking for. For example, this policy is racist:

“ No negro who is not in the military service shall be allowed to carry fire-arms, or any kind of weapons, within the parish, without the special written permission of his employers, approved and indorsed by the nearest and most convenient chief of patrol.”

This is an explicitly racist policy. So maybe you can help me out here: if the “system” is absent such policies, how is it racist?

That’s the sort of discrimination I’m talking about and looking for. — NOS4A2

It doesn't even refer to you. How can it target you?

It doesn't even refer to you. How can it target you?

I don’t see who else it could refer to.

I don’t see who else it could refer to. — NOS4A2

If there was another person who fit the criteria who wasn't you, would it cease to be made to target you?

[

If there was another person who fit the criteria who wasn't you, would it cease to be made to target you?

It would still target me and people like me, sure.

I’d love to hear your argument.

It would still target me and people like me, sure. — NOS4A2

Okay. Now let's say that it's anyone with approximately 3.4k posts who fit the criteria. Still targets you? Still a Nos4a2-ist policy? Even though it's weakened to effect other people incidentally?

I’d love to hear your argument. — NOS4A2

*sigh*

Sounds to be more about ethnicity than race. — NOS4A2

Is it racist to discriminate against ethnic groups?

Okay. Now let's say that it's anyone with approximately 3.4k posts who fit the criteria. Still targets you? Even though it's weakened to effect other people incidentally?

It certainly discriminates against a certain group of people while excluding others.

Is it racist to discriminate against ethnic groups?

Given the conflation of race and ethnicity I would have to say it is. Whether technically it is or not I am not too sure.

It certainly discriminates against a certain group of people while excluding others. — NOS4A2

So even though it doesn't target you by name, it's made explicitly to target you, and then some other people incidentally get effected by it. It is a Nos4a2-ist policy.

Structurally, that's exactly what the Atwater quote describes. Read it again:

You're getting so abstract now [that] you're talking about cutting taxes, and all these things you're talking about are totally economic things and a byproduct of them is [that] blacks get hurt worse than whites. And subconsciously maybe that is part of it. I'm not saying that. But I'm saying that if it is getting that abstract, and that coded, that we are doing away with the racial problem one way or the other. — Lee Atwater

Your intuitions are that "Let's ban all Trump supporters with approximately 3.4k posts who believe racism is predominantly propagated by putting people into race boxes who have approximately" explicitly targets you. And is Nos4a2-ist.

But your intuitions for "Let's enact policy that almost exclusively disadvantages blacks" are that it's not racist. Because it's not articulated in those terms.

You are not consistent.

Would you say forbiding discrimination based upon an individual's birthplace, ancestry, culture, linguistic characteristics, is a good way to prevent racism in a non-technical’ sense?

Your intuitions are that "Let's ban all Trump supporters with approximately 3.4k posts who believe racism is predominantly propagated by putting people into race boxes who have approximately" explicitly targets you. And is Nos4a2-ist.

But your intuitions for "Let's enact policy that almost exclusively disadvantages blacks" are that it's not racist. Because it's not articulated in those terms.

You are not consistent.

It explicitly targets “Trump supporters with approximately 3.4k posts who believe racism is predominantly propagated by putting people into race boxes”, to be sure, and given that I am the only one here who fits that description, it’s clear that it targets me.

I have no intuitions for “let’s enact policy that almost exclusively disadvantage blacks” because I have seen no such policies. If there are such extant policies I’m welcome to hear them. In fact I’ve been asking for them.

Would you say forbiding discrimination based upon an individual's birthplace, ancestry, culture, linguistic characteristics, is a good way to prevent racism in a non-technical’ sense?

I think it helps, at least when it comes to employment. Can it prevent racist thinking and beliefs? Probably not.

I think policies have to be explicitly racist in order for it to be racist — NOS4A2

Is discrimination based on individual's birthplace, ancestry, culture, linguistic characteristics, explicitly racist (non-technical sense)?